When I was in the Sales Administrator role, one time I received a complaint from one of our British customers regarding the quality of a chainsaw order which he believed was unacceptable. According to him, many customers who had bought this chainsaw asked for a refund due to poor performance of its blade that presented a much shorter lifetime than warranted on manual, despite their attributes as consumables. He wanted me to give him a good solution upon his business trip to our office in a weeks time that he would bring some refunded samples to us for evidence. As deadline for this task was so competing, I contacted our purchase team immediately and forwarded this information expressing that I needed to get two samples from the supplier who had delivered this order to our British customer. The second day upon receiving samples, I handed them to our QA/QC department with an intention to have them both assessed. I, on the other hand, checked users manual where I found their guaranteed lifetime for saw blades was one year, which was 8 months more than their genuine lifetime. After receiving feedback from our QA/QC department confirming that the actual lifetime for this saw blade was just around 3-4 months, which appeared to be the same as being described by my customer. With the sample testing report, my biggest challenge now lay in how to convince our supplier to make certain compensation that made both parties think acceptable. I then consulted our legal adviser regarding this issue, and was advised according to the discrepancy between what was described on manual and what actually was after being used, the supplier was believed to have already breached the International Trade Law and be liable for compensation. I then provided all the evidence to our purchase team expressing a suggested solution for compensation. At the beginning, our
